A BID to persuade a Scottish court to issue an order forcing Boris Johnson to obey the law and ask the EU for a Brexit extension has been dismissed.
Campaigners had wanted to ensure the Prime Minister complies with the so-called Benn Act, which states he must send a letter requesting an Article 50 extension if no deal has been agreed by October 19.
But the Court of Session said it would be "neither necessary nor appropriate" to take action, as Mr Johnson had assured it he will comply with the legislation.
The Prime Minister has insisted he would rather be “dead in a ditch” than delay the UK’s exit beyond October 31.
Meanwhile, Downing Street sources have repeatedly suggested Mr Johnson will find a way around the Benn Act.
But documents submitted to the Court of Session on behalf of the Prime Minister last week said he would not attempt to frustrate the legislation.
READ MORE: Tories told they should be panicking over independence
A legal challenge brought by businessman Dale Vince, QC Jo Maugham and SNP MP Joanna Cherry sought "coercive orders" forcing Mr Johnson to send the letter, as they argued he could not be trusted. This would have opened up the possibility of criminal sanctions if he did not.
However, in a written ruling, Lord Pentland said there "can be no doubt that the first respondent now accepts that he must comply with the requirements of the 2019 [Benn] Act and has affirmed that he intends to do so".
He warned that if Mr Johnson failed to comply with the legislation, it could damage the "mutual trust" between the courts and government.
He said: "I approach matters on the basis that it would be destructive of one of the core principles of constitutional propriety and of the mutual trust that is the bedrock of the relationship between the court and the Crown for the Prime Minister or the government to renege on what they have assured the court that the Prime Minister intends."
READ MORE: EU leaders unmoved by 'outstretched hand' of Boris Johnson
Lord Pentland said the documents submitted to the court by the Advocate General, on behalf of Mr Johnson, "set out clearly and unequivocally the Prime Minister’s intention to comply with his statutory duties under the 2019 Act".
He continued: "The Prime Minister and the government having thus formulated and presented to the court their considered legal position, there is no proper basis on which the court could hold that they are nonetheless liable to fail to do what they have in effect undertaken to the court that they will do."
He also said statements made by Mr Johnson and other ministers around the issue "must be understood in the political context in which they were made", as "expressions of the government’s political policy".
He later said: "If I may put the point another way, the government accepts that in executing its political policy it must comply with the 2019 Act.
"That being the government’s clearly stated position before the court, there is no need for coercive orders against it or against the Prime Minister to be pronounced."
The EU Withdrawal (No2) Act – known informally as the Benn Act after its architect, the Labour MP Hilary Benn – was passed by MPs last month.
Mr Vince, Mr Maugham and Ms Cherry are expected to appeal the latest decision at the Inner House of the Court of Session today.
Orders sought included stopping the Prime Minister from "frustrating" the will of the Act and mandating him to send the request. This would prevent him asking another member state to block the extension or sending an additional letter which contradicts the original.
Writing on Twitter, Mr Vince said: "It might not look like it, but we won today."
He added: "It was always my understanding that we couldn’t actually lose this case, because either the court would issue the injunction obliging BJ to uphold the law - or he would give clear undertakings to the court that he would do so."
Speaking outside the Court of Session, Mr Maugham said: "The court said it has promises from the Government that the Government will send the letter mandated by Parliament and will act in a way as not to frustrate Parliament's intention in enacting the so-called Benn Act. For myself, I very much hope the court is right and the Government will, as it has promised to do, abide by the law.
"But there is very real doubt in my mind that the Government will act in accordance with the law and so tomorrow we will pursue our appeal against the decision of the Outer House to the Inner House of the Court of Session."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel